AFTERNOON INFORMAL PLENARY SESSION

The Chair convened the session with an introduction on the form the
outcome of this Conference should take. A first series of speakers
took the floor to tell of their determination to see a
legally-binding document become the outcome of this Conference.
They said that if the text was finally agreed to by all, there
should be no reason why the agreed measures would not be binding.
While it is true that regional organizations will play a key role
in implementation, there are a number of general principles that
will apply in all instances. These should be codified in a
legally-binding document.

Several delegates indicated their willingness to continue the
process beyond the August deadline if this leads to the adoption of
a convention. A delegate argued that the transformation of the text
in a convention would merely be a technical exercise, and if the
document is too comprehensive, certain key elements could be
retained in a convention and would be supplemented by other
documents such as a General Assembly Resolution.

Enforcement by the coastal States is one of the areas in which a
legally-binding document would prove most useful. Past experiences
have shown that no action can be taken against those States that
have refused to abide by the regional arrangements. A new treaty
law approach could solve this problem, and it might best be
achieved through an intergovernmental negotiating committee
approach similar to the one in the conventions on climate change
and biodiversity. A delegate said that a draft convention had been
submitted to the Secretariat by a number of Latin American
countries and should be available to the delegates by the end of
the week.

The representative of a coastal State said that measures need to be
binding. If measures are not accepted at the global level, they
will not be more acceptable at the regional scale. A delegate said
that those who oppose the adoption of a legally-binding document
are those who want the over-fishing to carry on as it has up to
now.

Settlement of disputes is another area in which a Convention would
provide more certainty and predictability. Safeguards could be
included to ensure that some specific conditions are met before any
enforcement measure is taken. A delegate said that one should
distinguish what is illegal from what is wrong and a convention
alone can ensure that unfair practices stop.

A number of States said that they were quite flexible on the form
of the outcome as long as there is agreement on the substance. A
delegate said the final text would make little sense if it did not
apply to the stocks throughout their range.

Several representatives of distant water fishing States were of the
view that a legally-binding document was not required. Meaningful
results can be achieved through other means. The drift-net ban
resolution was given as a good example, but a coastal State
answered that there is no common measure between this very simple
resolution and the scope of what this Conference is trying to
achieve.

A convention was characterized as expensive and lengthy to
implement. Drafting a convention goes beyond the mandate of this
Conference under Resolution 47/192. It was also argued that States
would not be as willing to compromise if they felt that they would
be legally-bound by the outcome.

The representative of a small island State suggested that the
measures be adopted by consensus and they would then be implemented
and become the custom before ratification and entry into force. A
delegate also remarked that most of the States favoring a
legally-binding document are also those who want to limit the scope
of the Conference to the high seas.

The Chair concluded the debate on this section by saying that this
issue had been simmering from the beginning and he felt this
exchange of views had been constructive.